As I’ve explained many times, if you already have a debtor’s plan with a pending claim, it’s not like an asset protection plan, but instead (some very limited things allowed). It’s just an old scam (except for exemption plans etc.) Creditors. However, some planners seem to think that this kind of plan should be tackled. As a result, reported opinions are routinely seen in the area of undoable transactions, which not only failed this type of plan, but often yielded more results. Serious consequences for debtors. In addition to losing the assets the debtor was trying to protect, there were cases of punitive damages, heavy attorney’s fees incentives, and bankruptcy dismissals. But here we see another aspect of such post-billing planning. There, the planner and the bank involved are accused of trying to help the debtor fool the creditor.
The following opinion is made regarding summary judgment petition without fact finding by the court, but finding that the creditor has provided at least minimal evidence that such facts may exist (this). Is very different). I advise that the court will never rule on the case, as the proceedings ultimately led to a settlement between the parties. The defendant in this case enthusiastically denied and challenged the allegations of fact. Keep that in mind when we consider this opinion.
Also, in this case, I was one of the creditor’s expert witnesses and testified when the issue of fraudulent transfer was brought to justice. Still, my intention is to stick strictly to the body of the opinion on this matter and to divorce from any point of view, based on my special knowledge of the facts that are not in the opinion, anyway. It does not matter. This is not like a significant case as I was involved, but rather this is an important issue of the planner’s and lender’s liability for cancelable transactions alleged under Iowa’s Unified Cancellation Transactions Act (UVTA). Is a public opinion about. The law means that this opinion could extend to other cases in many states that have adopted UVTA or its predecessor, the Unified Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA).
Needless to say, the summary of my case is dominated by opinions to the extent that it seems different from what the court actually wrote. This is a very long opinion and is probably suitable for an extended law review commentary written by a lawyer who is much brighter than me. So if you run into any problems trying to condense it into this short article, please forgive me.
The proceedings were the last of three proceedings resulting from a car accident in which Stephen Weller struck Christina Kruse’s car and injured the latter very seriously. In the first proceeding, Creuset sued Weller for personal injury and received a $ 2.5 million personal injury award. In the second proceeding, Creuset sued Weller for committing certain fraudulent transfers and won a ruling to revoke (avoid) those transfers. It brings us to the third proceeding in which this opinion arises regarding summary judgment.
In the third proceeding, Weller’s lawyer David Rep and his law firms Dickinson, McCaman and others, and First State Bank (First State) in Linville, Iowa, protect Weller’s assets. Claimed to have colluded for. The result of Kruse’s personal injury judgment.
In essence, Weller knew he was due to a car accident and admitted the same to police officers who appeared on the scene. Weller used the server of local lawyer Randy Stravers (who was not the defendant in this case) for fear of losing his family-owned farm, fearing liability beyond the policy of a car accident exceeding $ 500,000. Retained and moved the farm to a undoable farm. Making “living” trust and a specific cash gift to the family. In this way, Weller opened an account in First State and gave a lot of cash to his family and friends. Weller’s insurance counsel then told Weller that these transfers were not appropriate, given the potential liability of Weller to Kruse.
Weller also told two First State police officers, Bradvanberg and Stephen Russell, that he would probably be sued because he had an accident with Creuset. On September 15, 2012, Weller was sued by Creuset in the first proceeding. A year later, on September 9, 2013, First State knew of Weller’s liability to Kruse, but First State conducted an annual borrower review of Weller’s loan, at which point Weller claimed net worth to First State. I submitted the financial statements. $ 365,745. By this time, Creuset has attempted to work with Weller’s legal counsel to transfer Weller’s assets or block them with a loan so that they cannot be used to fulfill Creuset’s responsibilities. Claimed to know. We know that it will ultimately be a means of fraudulent transfer of Weller by interfering with Weller’s property.
By this time Weller had changed his legal counsel from Stravers to David Rep of Dickenson LLP, and he maintained his position as an “asset protection lawyer.” Just two months before the trial began with the first Kruse case in which he was sentenced to $ 2.5 million, Weller first met Rep and gave a cash gift to friends and family on the advice of Stravers. Advised him about. .. Rep told Weller that this was bad advice under the circumstances, but the two still founded a new organization, Weller Farm LLC, to own Weller’s agricultural and commercial real estate with his son Cody Weller. I made a plan. The purpose of the Weller Farm’s creation and funding was, among other things, to “permanently maintain ownership of family assets” and to “restrict the right of non-family members to acquire interests in family assets.” You can also “protect your family’s assets from future creditor claims against your family.” The effect, of course, was to create a barrier for Creuset to enforce her judgment on Weller. In addition, when Weller signed a certificate of his living trust to transfer the land to Weller Farm LLC and an affidavit of the trustee, the land was subject to the enforcement of Kruse’s judgment, but the land. Stated that he was free and had no known disadvantages.
On May 8, 2015, Weller was sentenced to just over $ 2.5 million in favor of Creuset. Only three days later, Weller and Rep prepared another financial statement for Weller. This time, we will use it to negotiate a settlement with Creuset. The financial statements have made statements to reduce Weller’s net worth, primarily based on tampering with the value of Weller’s equity in Weller Fars LLC.
First State will reappear on October 9, 2015, when Weller meets with a bank loan officer for a review of his loan. Weller’s farmland and personal assets had already been transferred to Weller Farms LLC, which were listed in Weller’s personal financial statements. A few weeks later, First State gave Weller a “pass” rating, even though it had a negative net cash flow of $ 17,230 and its current assets were owned by Weller Farms LLC. It was not standard practice in State I to have an entity’s assets listed in the financial statements of an individual borrower.
Nevertheless, First State relied on Weller’s financial statements to refinance Weller Farm’s real estate. This was completed on January 4, 2016. The bank provided a loan of over $ 340,000.